Kangaroo Rat Race

Regarding the kangaroo rat/development controversy (Letters, July 9): Alan Newman’s two areas of concern deserve more attention than he gave them.

That other subspecies are not endangered is irrelevant. Should you destroy an animal just because it has a lot of cousins? That they have high reproductive rates doesn’t give you carte blanche. How high is the reproductive rate from zero population? What happens to the gene pool if you reduce their numbers to only a few? And Newman doesn’t think the loss of a subspecies would cause a “problem” to the food chain or the environmental balance. What does he call a “problem?” It would certainly make a difference. Why does he want to roll the environmental dice?

His economic argument is patently false. If the homes weren’t built, there would be no need for new sewers, water lines or electric service. I don’t have to pay for those things, the new homeowners do. Why should I and other taxpayers have to pay for the environmental problems caused exclusively by this developer?

CHARLES BRAGG

Pacific Palisades

Bragg is with the Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society.